Who’s got the new formula figured out?

Share this:

Some of the mist of close-season F1 testing cleared after the first day of running at Melbourne. The new hybrid formula’s personality and the revised competitive order began to emerge. Perhaps predictably, it was engine noise that dominated the general reaction.

The balance of opinion from fans was that the hybrid turbo V6s were simply not loud enough – and from trackside I can confirm that they are quieter by a massive degree, the volume perhaps only 30 per cent of that of the previous V8s. You can continue to converse as a car passes. But close up – rather than through a TV speaker – the quality and variety of the noise is fabulous.

They whistle, growl, whine, cough and burble their way through each phase of the braking/corner/acceleration sequence – and the aural distinction between each make of engine is far clearer than ever it was in the wall of sound V10 and V8 eras.

Under heavy braking you hear a combination of a metallic meshing whine, like straight-cut gears and a low rumble as the braking and turbo go about recovering the energy. As the driver gets tentatively back on the power there’s the cough of cylinder cut as they conserve every drop of that precious 100kg fuel allowance, then back on full power and the recognisably V6 burble is contained to a cultured tone by the turbo.

That turbo then provides the sound sensation of the acceleration rate itself actually accelerating, a phenomenon absent from F1 since the 1980s. By the end of the straights they are flying along visibly faster than the V8s ever did. Faster up to the corners, slower into them, faster out of them, they are visually way more spectacular, the drivers much busier, old-fashioned power slides out of slow turns.

Quietest of all in the braking zone are the Ferrari engines, with downshifts that border on inaudible. There’s a reason for that. Ferrari has used the secondary motor-generator turbine that’s mounted on the same shaft as the turbo to provide the revs ‘blip’ for the down-change. No fuel-burning throttle is used.

As well as being more economical, the engine speed increase of the blip can be controlled much more precisely, helping with braking stability, a quality that is very much at a premium with this generation of car. The brake-by-wire systems that automatically compensate the brake balance for the massive changes in torque reversal as the ERS unit stops harvesting are not yet finely-tuned.

Several cars are suffering from a pattering effect of their rear ends under braking. This is only amplified by the reduction in rear downforce; without the lower beam wing, there is hugely more variability in downforce as the car goes over bumps – and that compounds the problem.

There’s an exception to this though, a car that has braking stability and corner entry downforce that’s of a different order to anything else – and it’s the Red Bull. Whenever Renault Sport gets that engine anywhere near as good as the Mercedes motor, the RB10 is gone.

What to expect

From the perspective of right now (a perspective that can often be badly distorted, it’s true) the Mercedes team needs to win everything while the Red Bull is compromised by that motor, because the blue cars will be coming back at the silver ones in a big rush.

Ferrari looks more competitive in qualifying – where there’s no 100kg fuel limit to worry about – than in race day trim when it seemingly has to run less power to remain within the instantaneous fuel flow limit of 100kg/hour. Because the energy recovery is not as efficient, more use has to be made of the engine itself – costing fuel. So to keep the fuel usage on target, it has to run lower boost.

Although drivers were able to lean on the tyres around Albert Park – and were definitely not needing to drive to a delta time to get competitive stint lengths – there was still a displeasing endurance-style aspect about keeping within the fuel limitation – for some cars, at least. Drivers were having to lift and coast, with as much as a one second gap between lifting off the throttle and getting onto the brakes.

This doesn’t lose you all that much lap time, but does improve fuel consumption. But it’s surely not how we want to see Grand Prix drivers having to drive. We like that they need to work at the wheel more, use up more track and call upon their car control skills more frequently. We don’t like them having to use the throttle/brake sequence like little old ladies. Overlapping throttle and brake to manipulate the attitude of the car upon the corner entry – the very core of what separates the great from the good – is now a no-no.

The Mercedes-powered drivers don’t need to worry as much about this as the others for the efficiency of their energy recovery is such that even around Albert Park – a circuit with the second or third highest fuel consumption of the year – Mercedes teams were considering not putting in the full 100kg of fuel and perhaps short-fuelling. It implies that it’s quite feasible there will be no circuits on the calendar where the Mercs are fuel-limited.

“If that’s the case,” said one Renault-engined team engineer, “then they might as well give the trophies out now.” Ferrari and Renault are nowhere near achieving this at the moment.

There’s a lot more fascinating detail to learn about these cars, but many of their secrets have surrendered to a bit of scrutiny in the first session of the new formula.

Share this:

Grand Prix editor

In previous lives Mark raced cars, worked at Jim Russell racing school, got a university degree which he never used, tried working in industry, didn’t like it, left and joined Motoring News in 1988 as a junior club race reporter. Went freelance in ’96, concentrated on F1 from 2000. Grand Prix editor of Autosport for 10 years.

As usual, Mark Hughes missed out on a couple of point (or thought it not important enough to cover, even worse), and the comments of Rosberg, contradicting Hughes last point regarding Merc fuel usage.

- It was great to see the current best driver in F1, Sebastian Vettel, do his thing. The fastest out and out driver of his generation showed knife sharp cornering in the updated and beautiful Red Bull.

- The only guy coming close was Nico Hulkenberg. The way these 2 took on the last corner was breathtaking to see. Its nice to see Hulkenebrg having a car that perhaps can mingle with the best.

- Ferrari looked awful. Alonso making corrections everywhere and Kimi having some undefined problem. The race simulations where more than a second behind the Mercedes pair.

- Rosberg hinted the problem they had the last few years with huge tyre degradation, isnt gone yet and manifested itself today. Last year the Mercs did reasonable race sims on friday, to hopelessly fall back on sunday.

- He also hinted he never hit the fuel usage goals per lap.

- For the home fans drama ensued as FOM decided to ban sector times in their website live timing app, and force people to use mobile phone apps for number crunching. How FOm thinks I want to constantly check a tiny screen for info, is beyond me.

- Lewis Hamilton had his latest brain fade, as he said Michael Schumacher’s accident ‘happened for a reason’.

- The F1 engine noise is awful, period.

on 14th March 2014 at 19:19

Ray In Toronto, Canada (Ray T (The other one))

Hi Mark,

Great piece!

I was up at 1:25 a.m. in our time zone to watch most of P2.

Seems like there’s going to be a huge amount of development gains through the course of this season.

James Allen and Alan McNish of the BBC were saying that some engineers expect cars to be 4 seconds faster if they came back to Melbourne in November (as opposed to 2 seconds last year).

That means Mercedes can definitely be caught.

Also looking forward to seeing the intra-team battles at Mercedes, Ferrari, Williams, McLaren, Force India, Lotus and even Red Bull.

Should be facinating.

PS

Nice to see a limit to the amount of Pirelli ‘marbles’ – but shame about the 100 Kg fuel limit.

I guess you’re betting the farm on a Hamilton World Championship?

on 14th March 2014 at 19:24

daveyman

I haven’t really read Lewis’ comments regarding Schumacher but I would have a very hard time believing that whatever he said was meant in a negative way. I became aware of the story via Yahoo and their take on it was that Lewis really should be more careful what he says. I would say to the media that you can’t have it both ways. Leaping on the tiniest thing the drivers say that the media believe they can blow up into a storm is hardly gonna make the drivers open up.

on 14th March 2014 at 21:00

Kevin Joyce

err…yes….back to the article then…

Cheers for the inside line Mark, if Merc are able to complete a race distance with fuel not being an issue then that bodes well for the others when they eventually get on the same level. If the cars get lighter and lighter on fuel, we might just see a return to flat out driving.

on 14th March 2014 at 22:12

PeteH

The engine noise is superb, quality outranks quantity every day of the year. Period.

on 14th March 2014 at 23:14

Uncle Iberian

If this new formula finds its followers, I don’t mind, kudos to the FIA then. But I quit following Formula 1, this is a comedy with cars sounding so bad and looking aweful as well. A street bike sounds better than the new generation F1 V6 engine.

I understand why journos and the teams are so keen to defend the noise – it’s their core business, you don’t bite the hand that feeds.

I quit, this is not Formula 1. IndyCar is my thing now.

on 15th March 2014 at 02:12

Norm

By the time the teams get to Europe no one will be talking about the sound. Everyone will get used to it.
They sound ok (on TV for me), different to the v8 but I didn’t particularly like the v8. It was just a high pitched shriek with no discernible note. And I heard it live too. On tv it was worse.
At least they’re not diesel…

on 15th March 2014 at 07:45

Jock Hiddleston

Having just watched qualy. I do believe there is a glimmer of light for F1.
The cars sound ok, not the best but ok. (How I long for the “Sounds of the 70′s” V8, V12, FLAT12.)
The qualy was very good, great to see rookies in the top 10, pity JB didn’t make it.
McLaren and Williams look promising.
Give F1 one a chance Uncle Iberian, while I agree with a lot you have said, it deserves a chance.

on 15th March 2014 at 12:15

PeteC

I think my F1 days are over, ugly cars and an awful noise…

on 15th March 2014 at 15:39

Aldo

I quite enjoyed qualifying and I find these cars interesting. But the DRS is just completely and utterly ridiculous – total artifice that needs to go, it really does the sport a disservice and makes a mockery of us all.

on 15th March 2014 at 17:02

Diego

Propjoe: How can you know Rosberg is telling the truth? Why should he, or any other driver, tell the whole truth?

on 15th March 2014 at 17:07

Al

I agree, Aldo: DRS is why I haven’t watched an entire race in years. The Prius technology and the noise it makes is neither here nor there; maybe it’s relevant and necessary or maybe it’s just PR for the greenies. But until that DRS flap is gone, I will not watch.

on 15th March 2014 at 20:05

BJ

If you fair weather F1 “fans” are leaving because you do not like the looks or the sound, then you’re not even fans at all and you will not be missed. Good riddance.

on 15th March 2014 at 20:05

Al

But are you a “fan” of the magic flap that gives the guy behind a free pass, BJ? If you accept that in F1, the series is all yours.

on 15th March 2014 at 20:43

PeteC

As well as DRS, I hope BJ enjoys the rubbish tyres, the 100kg fuel economy runs and the double points in Abu Dhabi where Lewis Hamilton who is leading the championship by 49 points loses the title when Maldonado puts him in the wall…

on 15th March 2014 at 22:18

daveyman

If I’ve understood the rules right then the Idea of setting a maximum fuel flow rate is sound. It stops the teams turning the wick right up in the early stages, getting a clear lead and then managing the consumption later in the race.

on 16th March 2014 at 23:33

Steve Taylor

Ok the first race is out if the way. Not a classic by any means. But now we have trouble and confusion, with disqualification and discredit. Precisely why the new regs are too complicated.
I listened again to the Gordon Murray podcast to hear his views. What a lot of sense. I totally agree with his comments about F1 being a ‘green’ formula, when the designers are faced with squeezing every last ounce of HP from an engine, making the bodywork as slippery as possible and getting the weight down to the absolute minimum. How green is that. Let’s get back to simplicity and away from this over-regulated, over-governed, and over-managed excuse for a sport.
Motor Racing at the lighest level will never be accepted by the ‘yoghurt knitters’ and tree huggers but we are entitled to our fun just as they are. So why try to be green?
I don’t know whether I am going to be turned on by this new dawn for F1. However as I’ve watched it over the years since my Dad took me Oulton Park in 1957 I expect I’ll still be there in front of the telly in November when it all wraps up in Abu Dhabi.

on 17th March 2014 at 16:46

CW

“Ferrari has used the secondary motor-generator turbine that’s mounted on the same shaft as the turbo to provide the revs ‘blip’ for the down-change. No fuel-burning throttle is used.”

This is very unlikely (if the author is talking about MGU-H). As I understand it, the turbo shaft is not mechanically linked to the engine. That motor-generator can spin the turbine up, eliminating turbo lag (and thus be more efficient than some old anti-lag systems that dumped fuel in to keep the turbine spinning), but it won’t have any effect on matching the engine speed to the road speed.

on 19th March 2014 at 15:32

Mark Hughes

A couple of clarifications/corrections/further info. 1) The Ferrari’s downshift blips are controlled by the ersK not the ersH. 2) The main reason for imposing a fuel flow limit was to peg engine power. Without it, you could have software that would give you much enhanced power in certain parts of the lap whilst still staying within the 100kg capacity limit. These would probably develop into super high-revving motors that had little to do with the development direction of the industry. The fuel flow limit idea is not a new one – Keith Duckworth was suggesting it back in the ’70s. This time around it was the manufacturers who were consulted – including some not yet in – who felt it would be a good idea. 3) Re the reader talking about Red Bull replacing the FIA fuel metering sensor with its own: no, the FIA unit remained on. But its readings didn’t tally with what the team’s own telemetry from the injectors was saying. So when the FIA warned the team on Friday that Ricciardo’s flow was being exceeded and that they should alter the fuel flow accordingly, Red Bull said that it must be a fault in the FIA sensor because the engine’s injectors were showing legal fuel flow. They didn’t therefore alter the flow and when it happened again on Sunday the FIA felt it had to disqualify.